From: Seth L. Kroger
To: All Msg #70, Mar-01-93 11:06AM
Subject: Re: That docufantasy of the Flood on CBS
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
From: skroger@tuba.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Message-ID: <1993Mar01.190649.118842@zeus.calpoly.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
DrBob@cup.portal.com (Robert A Rethemeyer) writes:
>arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes...
>> The structural integrity of the ark was proven by "Professor of
>>Hydrology", Henry Morris(not also saying that he's the head of the Institute
>>of Creation Research). Apparently, if a block of wood 2 feet long could
>>survive being tossed around in a swimming pool, the ark could some how stay
>>afloat. Ridiculous!
>
>If you are pronouncing this judgment on the TV program's presentation of
>the idea, I would say you are correct. If, however, you are dismissing
>the entire concept, then I would suggest that you have spoken too hastily.
>(BTW, the statement concerned the ark's stability, not structural integrity.)
>
>Dr. Morris presents the calculations and analysis to back up his statement
>in his book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" (1984) on pages 293-295.
>It is a fairly simple exercise in basic principles of buoyancy and algebra.
>And it was verified on a scale model of the ark in a large wave tank at
>Scripps Institute (hardly a swimming pool).
Bouyancy and algebra. I see a lot of basic principles missing from
this list that are very important to structural integrity. There's
*calculus (to integrate all those *loads* and *moments*), *torsional
loads*, *bending stresses*, *shear flow*, *structural deflection*,
*strength and properties of materials*, and the all improtant *failure
analysis*.
I've done stuff like this in my structures classes. It seems a bit much
to condense into a mere three pages. Neither is it fairly simple
either. It involves a good deal of calculus and structural theory. It
also involves doing the calculations for a number of loading cases.
Also, how does that model scale correctly? I think it's somewhat
dubious in that regard. On a ship of that size (~400-500 ft for the
ark), it seems that the moments <==> bending stress would get you.
>What can we say this proves? Nothing, other than the ark dimensions stated
>in Genesis were well-suited for its intended purpose.
>The tone of your statement also leads me to believe you think that Morris
>is some self-appointed expert. Though I doubt this will impress anyone,
>here, just for the record, are some of Morris' credentials and affiliations:
[deletia...list of credentials on H. Morris]
Given what I know of things Morris has said, I'm not impressed with his
credentials. For instance, I find it difficult to believe that someone
who is supposed to be knowelegable in fluid dynamics would claim that
large objects settle slower than smaller ones (wrt hydralic sorting).
The exact opposite happens.
I also question his engineering credentials wrt the ark's structural
integrity. In particular, his apparent lack of a failure analysis
(ie., under what conditions *will* the ark fail) is a grave oversight.
I think that just about any engineer would preform this for a structure
under question. Why didn't Morris?
>Most of the above are the author credits from the book by Morris & Whitcomb,
>"The Genesis Flood, the Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications".
>Too bad the awful CBS flick is the focus of t.o. discussions; this book
>would be a much more intelligent source of topics for Flood debates.
Well, why don't you shift the focus and discuss some of this stuff. We
could start with the calculations you mentioned above.
> Bob Rethemeyer
|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger "If God made us in His image we |